Thursday, 19 February 2009

Facebook and Twitter will give you cancer!

A short item on the Today Programme this morning had Dr Aric Sigman explaining the conclusions of a paper he has authored for the peer-reviewed Institute of Biology Journal, Biologist, entitled Well Connected?: The Biological Implications of ‘Social Networking’. The BBC website covers it here: BBC NEWS | UK | Online networking 'harms health' and you can hear Dr Sigman on the BBC here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7899000/7899649.stm

I'm not a biologist, and not a member of the Institute of Biology, so I can't access Dr Sigman's article*. But his press release is available on his website, so I've looked at that. Early on in the press release is this graph, presumably excerpted from the article:

I'm not a biologist, neither am I a statistician, but this graph seems to show only that over a period of 20 years, face-to-face social interaction went down from six hours to two hours per day, while over the same two decades use of electronic media went up from four to eight hours per day. So the conclusion seems to be that the four hours that were spent face-to-face in 1987, were in 2007 spent in using electronic media. He seems to be suggesting that face-to-face interaction has gone down because of the increase in use of electronic media. Maybe. Or it could be coincidence. The graph doesn't show what people were doing with the other hours in the day, so on the whole it doesn't tell you very much.

The rest of the press release seems to claim that face-to-face interaction has positive health effects, and this may well be true, but the preponderance of "links" and "associations" suggests that most of these are correlations and not causation. Take this, for example:

"Women who have suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) with a small social
circle exhibit more than twice the death rate of those with a larger social circle."
It's possible that some women have a small social circle for reasons that are to do with being medically disposed to more serious and life-threatening coronary artery disease - not the other way around. I've not seen Dr Sigman's actual paper (which appears to be a meta-study, and presumably doesn't include any actual clinical research), so I don't know if the causation he ascribes is valid.

Valid or not, it makes a good headline, and you can rely on the Daily Mail to pick it up: How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer.

If the audio expires, download it from RapidShare here:


http://rapidshare.com/files/341833475/MoralMaze_The_BBCR4dtt-20090218.mp3

*UPDATE 2009-02-19:
The paper published in Biologist is now freely available:
http://www.iob.org/userfiles/Sigman_press.pdf

UPDATE 2009-02-20:
Until I get around to reading the paper myself, here's someone who already has:
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/02/facebook_causes_marb.html
(via Ben Goldacre's Twitter feed)

Saturday, 14 February 2009

Christopher Booker, creationist

"One would never have guessed from the adulation heaped on the great man by the likes of Sir David Attenborough that there is something very odd about Darwin’s theory."
Okay, I'm with you so far, Mr Booker, but this I didn't expect:
"One great stumbling block to his argument is that evolution has repeatedly taken place in leaps forward so sudden and so complex that they could not possibly have been accounted for by the gradual process he suggested - “the Cambrian explosion" of new life forms, the complexities of the eye, the post-Cretaceous explosion of mammals. Again and again some new development emerged which required a whole mass of interdependent changes to take place simultaneously, such as the transformation of reptiles into feathered, hollow-boned and warm-blooded birds."
It's from last week's Sunday Telegraph, also available online:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4550448/Charles-Darwin-zealots-have-made-science-a-substitute-religion.html

I can't help wondering whether Mr Booker actually understood (or even paid any attention to) what David Attenborough so lucidly explained in his recent exemplary BBC TV programme, "Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life". To take just one obvious example from the quote above, Attenborough's explanation of the evolution of the eye, accompanied by clear and excellent graphics, shows precisely why it cannot be held to be "irreducibly complex".

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's incapable of being understood. Do your research - pontificating on the basis of ignorance is not what I call reasoned argument.

Burnee links for (another) Saturday


CV of a bus driver - 110 « My Creative Year

Pharyngula: Gerald Warner, death cultist

New Humanist Blog: Bunch of dougnuts

Sir David Attenborough: 'I get hate mail telling me to burn in hell for not crediting God' - Telegraph

Johann Hari: Why should I respect these oppressive religions? - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

Christina Martin - occasional writer and comedian: He's behind you!

YouTube - Nature Video: David Attenborough on Darwin


Notes Archive - Butterflies & Wheels - This is our Thought for the Day, god damn it!

Johann Hari: Despite these riots, I stand by what I wrote - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

Thursday, 15 January 2009

Ariane Sherine delivers her Thought for the Afternoon on BBC Radio 4

After the successful launch of the Atheist Bus Campaign, and another campaign last week for Radio Four's Thought For The Day to be opened up to non-religious speakers, the BBC has (a) caved in to pressure, or more likely (b) offered a sop to shut the godless heathens up, by allowing Ariane Sherine to present a "Thought for the Afternoon" on the BBC's iPM programme, hosted by Eddie Mair.

Ariane did a good job, with a well thought out thought, nicely presented. But I'll be extremely surprised if "Thought for the Afternoon" becomes a regular spot (and I'll be flabbergasted if Thought For The Day on the Today programme is opened up to secular viewpoints).

iPM website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ipm/

Audio available as an mp3 in the iPM podcast feed or as a direct download:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/ipm/ipm_20090110-1800a.mp3

The relevant clip - 9'19" 4.3 MB mp3 - can also be downloaded from RapidShare here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/341835073/ArianeSherine_iPM_BBCR4dtt-20090110.mp3

Saturday, 10 January 2009

Apes and Angels - BBC Radio 4 Afternoon Play

On Tuesday I was alerted (thanks Dad!) to the broadcast of an Afternoon Play on Radio 4, written by Jim Eldridge:

"A clash over the teaching of creationism at a flagship academy looks set to bring damaging publicity and embarrass the schools minister, who has close links to the industrialist behind the academy."
Available on BBC iPlayer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/afternoonplay_tue

If and when the iPlayer link above expires, download the mp3 from RapidShare here: http://rapidshare.com/files/341838131/ApesAndAngels_BBCR4i-20090106.mp3

The play appears to take the side of the school, against a teacher who objects to teaching creationism, but in the words of a well-known UK science blogger, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

Thursday, 8 January 2009

Burnee links for Thursday

Fundie Country Music Grandpa Hates You - Skepchick: Critical Thinking at its Finest

Bad Science » The barefaced cheek of these characters will never cease to amaze and delight me.

New Humanist Blog: Atheist Buses finally on the road

C of E leaps onto the recession bandwagon with a ‘prayer for the redundant’

Ariane Sherine: We did it! The atheist bus campaign is bigger and better then ever | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

New Humanist Blog: Church removes "horrifying" crucifix

An older article, discovered serendipitously:
Daylight Atheism > The Age of Wonder

Is Dan Barker a fundamentalist? - Skepchick: Critical Thinking at its Finest

No, not in the strict sense. But he is a convert (or rather, a de-convert), and converts tend to be the most "devout". When Dan Barker ceased to be an evangelical preacher and became an atheist, it stands to reason that he would evangelize his atheism. The FRFF sign - that Skepchick writerdd's post is about - is intentionally confrontational, because it's trying to make a point. (It amuses me how often even the mildest expression of atheism is greeted with horror and protest by the religious, when their own public statements can be so inflammatory.)

I've not read Dan Barker's book, but it's on my list.

Your Insurance Rates Just Went Up - JREF